Read More

Kingdom dished out fines for these misdemeanours

As the enforcement firm clears its Kirklees offices it is clear that the hard-line strategy it enabled wasn’t entirely suitable for the vast array of issues it was recruited to resolve, which included dog fouling, urinating in public and selling vehicles on the public highway.

Some would say it shouldn't be involved in the public sector at all.

The complete lack of right to appeal the claims of one of the firm’s enforcement officers was the main thing many found hard to swallow. All you could do was refuse to pay and wait for a court summons.

There was also no discount to the £75 fine for paying promptly, unlike when you are caught parking your car on the council's roads illegally.

Many who’ve come face to face with Kingdom officers also said they threatened to call the police if they did not hand over their personal details.

The council itself told the Examiner in 2017 that you could be arrested if you refused to co-operate and that it was an offence to not provide your name and address.

One of those who warned it might go wrong was former Kirklees cabinet member for Highways, Clr Martyn Bolt.

Commenting on the new contract in April 2017, the Conservative member for Mirfield, said: “If it cleans up the streets and sorts out some of Kirklees problems it’s okay.

“But one of my worries is the management at Kingdom is private so you may lose the discretion that council managers might have had.

“They may have only given a warning whereas this company is getting paid on its results.”

Reacting on the end of Kingdom's tenure, Clr Bolt said he felt he'd been proved right that a private provider was unsuitable for the council's environmental enforcement.

"It was always such a blunt instrument and not the right way to improve the environment in Kirklees," he said.

"Fining people for dropping litter doesn't clear it up, and the money was going to a private company, not being invested in Kirklees.

"If we had in-house staff from Kirklees, they can not only enforce legislation, but also educate people.

"They've got the weight of the law if they need it, but they can also have a word with people and give them a warning."

Kirklees Council brought in Kingdom amid a shortage of staff in the department, to the point where in early 2017 it admitted it had no one to patrol the streets to issue fines.

Clr Bolt said the council should have learned a lot from the Kingdom deal.

He added: "This was a very poor contract where there was no oversight.

"Everything was abdicated to Kingdom and we had no agreement on how the customer facing aspect was delivered.

"I myself saw someone in Dewsbury being harangued by two officers and the first thing I saw was the Kirklees Council logo and then the less obvious Kingdom logo.

"These people were passing themselves off as council staff when they weren't.

"Kirklees should have learned from this, that there is revenue potential from having an enforcement arm.

"They could also do what we've suggested in Mirfield by having multi-skilled community wardens who can issue fines and also enforce poor parking outside of schools."

A member of the public who fell foul of the covert tactics of Kingdom officers has also celebrated the ending of the private contract.

He said when he tried to walk away, the officers surrounded him and said they would ring the police.

Reacting to the news that Kingdom were no longer contracted, he said: “About time”.

And he revealed he was one of the few that had refused to pay up and got away with it.

He said: “I had a couple of letters saying I had to pay within a certain date but I emailed the council saying ‘I’ll see you in court’ and that I had no intention of doing so and I’ve not heard anything.”

He added: “It was wrong the way they were doing it.

“If you’re going to do it, I think you’ve got to give people a fair chance.

“They were just looking for easy targets and they wouldn’t go for anyone under the age of 18.

“They were modern day Dick Turpins using harassment and intimidation, and that’s why a lot of people just handed over the money.

“They should be refunded as the attitude (of the enforcement officials) was disgusting.”

Read More

Kirklees Green party leader, Clr Andrew Cooper, whose ward covers Huddersfield town centre, said he felt the council should control its own environmental enforcement.

He said: “There were complaints that Kingdom were a wee bit heavy handed and they were motivated, not necessarily by dealing with people dropping litter, but by their own incentives.

“So I can understand why Kingdom have now gone but I’m also keen to make sure people are penalised if they drop litter.

“Other councils have decided it’s worth their while to employ people to do it and if the private sector can make it work financially, it must be worth doing.

“We need to ask ourselves how are we going to deal with littering in public spaces and use the powers we have to do something that’s of benefit to the public.

“I hope we’ve learned from it but there’s obviously more than one way of doing this.

“The private sector can be over-enthusiastic as they’re all about profit margins whereas we the council should be motivated by the common good.

“We’ve got to be careful when working with the private sector.

“There’s some things they do well but generally speaking I do not think they should be involved in the public sector.”

Leader of Kirklees Lib Dems, Clr John Lawson, agreed.

He said: "There are avenues for the private sector in local government, they can be useful to a job at a lower cost than the council can.

"But with things like this where you're dealing face to face with the public and essentially making money out of policing the litter problem, it causes a deep lack of trust between the public and the council.

"Dropping litter is really offensive but it shouldn't be a money spinner or a way of milking the public for cash."